Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES

15614

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 55 / Wednesday, March 24, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
Response: We will informally review the status of the reintroduction program on an annual basis. We intend to release key information from this informal annual review e.g., population size, number of releases, number of deaths to the public. Our formal status review of the reintroduction program, where we will assess whether we should continue or discontinue the reintroduction program in the Pacific Northwest, will likely occur within the first 5 years of the program. The review cycles will be aligned from that point forward. Based on our experiences releasing California condors in other areas, we caution that evaluating whether or not the program is successfuland therefore, whether it should continuewill take at least two decades i.e., several 5-year review cycles.
Comment: One peer reviewer suggested that we should provide mechanisms for cancelling the program if a sufficient number of condors are killed or lost for reasons that cannot be alleviated due to the experimental NEP
status.
Response: As stated in the proposed rule, and in this final rule, if a formal evaluation indicates the project is experiencing a 40 percent or greater mortality rate over multiple years or released California condors are not finding food on their own, we would evaluate options, including discontinuing releases, capturing and removing condors from the NEP area, and whether to remove the NEP
designation and regulations. If we proposed removal of the regulations, we would provide an opportunity for public review and comment.
Comment: One peer reviewer expressed concern over whether establishing a new population would impact the viability of existing populations. They also asked us to describe how the captive facilities will increase production and questioned whether funding and support would be available to accomplish that work.
Response: In our proposed rule, and in this final rule, we provide information on a preliminary demographic analysis that shows existing populations are likely to continue to grow even when breeding facilities are producing California condor chicks at less than existing capacity. The condor program has a long history of cooperation among partner institutions, and we have broad support among these institutions for establishment of a new release site in the Pacific Northwest. Likewise, the condor program is funded by a wide variety of partners and sources which are expected to continue to be able to
VerDate Sep<11>2014

15:49 Mar 23, 2021

Jkt 253001

support the existing breeding facilities capacity. Decisions on allocation of condor chicks are made in collaboration with these partner institutions and geneticists. Given the available information on condor demography and the strength and longevity of our partnerships, we are confident that captive-breeding facilities will continue to produce sufficient numbers of California condors to ensure the viability of existing populations and the success of a new reintroduction program in the Pacific Northwest.
Comment: One peer reviewer stated success of the reintroduction program was not defined. They requested that we included an explicit definition of success or remove the term from the final rule.
Response: The ultimate goal of any conservation reintroduction is to establish a self-sustaining wild population. We will evaluate, every 5
years, whether the program is progressing toward achieving that goal.
Based on our experience, estimates of mortality rates in the first decade of the release programs at existing sites in California and Arizona were between 1735 percent. Since we expect it will take many years to achieve our ultimate goal of a self-sustaining wild population, we will consider success to be the continued progress toward achieving that goal. As stated in the final rule, if we observe a 40 percent or greater mortality rate over multiple years, or released California condors are not finding food on their own, serious consideration will be given to terminating the project.
Comment: One peer reviewer asked whether there might be threats unique to northern California or Oregon, that are not threats in the current range of the California condor.
Response: We are not aware of any threats to the California condor that are unique to the Pacific Northwest. We will closely monitor the health of released condors and address any novel threats, should they emerge.
Comment: One peer reviewer stated that he thought the scientific and biological components of the proposed rule were excellent and clearly described. He also provided several technical corrections and edits related to condor biology and management.
Response: We thank the reviewer for his comments and, as appropriate, have incorporated corrections.
Public Comments Comment: Condors should be removed from the field if designation of a nonessential population changes recreational activities that were legal at
PO 00000

Frm 00054

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

the time of the designation, specifically hunting and recreational shooting.
Other activities that should be protected in this manner include ranching, timber harvest activities, mining, environmental remediation and restoration, power operations, transportation for both interand intrastate commerce, currently in-place endangered species recovery plans, and housing development in cities.
Commenters suggested that removing condors from the field should also be included if a sufficient number of individuals are lost during the program.
Response: This rule exempts almost all incidental take of California condors.
Significant noise or visual disturbance or habitat alteration within 656 ft 200
m of occupied nests are prohibited.
Excluded from this prohibition are emergency fuels treatment activities by Federal, State, and local agencies and Tribes to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire and emergency response services. Activities such as ranching and use of existing roads and trails within the 656 ft 200 m buffer area around an occupied nest would not be considered a significant visual or noise disturbance.
Thus, this rule provides substantial assurances that there will be minimal if any impacts to the activities the commenter mentions. As stated in the proposed rule, and in this final rule, if a formal evaluation indicates the project is experiencing a 40 percent or greater mortality rate over multiple years or released California condors are not finding food on their own, serious consideration will be given to terminating the project.
Comment: Commenters asked for clarification on how the 10j rule would address condors that leave the NEP area.
One commenter suggested that the rule should require condors that leave the designated NEP boundary to be recaptured and returned, which would address the requirement that this population be geographically disjunct from other populations and result in better survival of birds that leave the NEP area.
Response: California condors that fly outside of the NEP area will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. We do not require the relocation of condors that leave the NEP area. We will consider recapture if a condor moves outside of the NEP and is observedby an individual trained in condor biology and behaviorexhibiting signs of illness, obvious distress, or exhibits behavior indicating it is at increased risk of harm. While this population is likely to be wholly separate from other condor populations for the foreseeable future, we do not intend to actively
E:FRFM24MRR1.SGM

24MRR1